Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Molecular and Cellular Biology, January 2004, p. 442-453, Vol. 24, No. 1
0270-7306/04/$08.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/MCB.24.1.442-453.2004
Copyright © 2004, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
Dennis H. Dowhan,1 Xiaotao Li,1 Kimberly Larkin,1 Lan Ko,2 Susan M. Berget,3 and Bert W. O'Malley1*
Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology,1 Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas 77030,3 Department of Pathology, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, Georgia 309122
Received 25 June 2003/ Returned for modification 3 September 2003/ Accepted 30 September 2003
|
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
Functional principles for the "mechanical" coordination between the different steps of the gene expression process are emerging (7, 12, 38). Most human primary transcripts contain several exons separated by introns that are removed during the splicing reaction. Due to the presence of multiple splice sites, the RNA-splicing process can lead to the production of multiple mature transcripts. Alternative splicing is more a rule than an exception since up to 60% of the human gene products are alternatively spliced (7, 12, 15, 38, 48). This mechanism permits diversity of translatable mRNAs, thereby increasing the proteome diversity encoded by a limited number of genes (7, 12, 31, 38). The "mechanical" coupling of transcription to splicing could allow the transcriptional machinery to simultaneously control the amount and the nature (exon content) of the transcript. This hypothesis is supported by reports showing that promoter architecture influences splicing decisions (6, 17, 42). In this context, we also have shown that activated steroid hormone receptors control gene transcription and affect splicing decisions in a promoter-dependent manner (2). Our hypothesis is that hormonally activated nuclear receptors recruit a set of transcriptional coregulators which may participate in the splicing decisions of the neonascent transcripts (2). Supporting this hypothesis, we and others have shown that transcriptional coregulators can indeed affect splicing decisions (2, 11, 14, 37).
To gain insight into the molecular mechanisms by which transcriptional coregulators affect splicing decisions, we focused our attention on a recently identified protein, CoAA (16). CoAA was identified as an interacting protein with the transcriptional coregulator TRBP; TRBP was cloned by several groups as an LXXLL domain-containing protein that interacts with several nuclear receptors (5, 20, 23, 29, 56). CoAA is a heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein (hnRNP)-like protein similar in structure to a family of proteins involved in pre-mRNA processing (16, 48, 51, 52). CoAA contains two RNA recognition motifs (RRMs) within the N-terminal part of the protein. An auxiliary domain within the C-terminal part contains the TRBP-interacting domain (TRBP-ID [see Fig. 3]) and is rich in glycine and tyrosine residues (16). CoAA enhances the transcriptional activity of several transcription factors, and we have reported that it affects splicing decisions for transcripts from a minigene derived from the human CD44 gene (2, 16).
![]() View larger version (30K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 3. The RRMs of CoAA mediate transcriptional effects on CMV-luciferase reporter gene. (A) CoAA, hnRNPA1, and p54nrb contain two N-terminal RNA RRMs and a C-terminal auxiliary domain either rich in glycine (G) and tyrosine (Y) residues (CoAA and hnRNPA1) or rich in acidic and basic residues (A/B, p54nrb). The RRMs and the auxiliary domains of these proteins were exchanged as described in Materials and Methods and as illustrated on the right. (B) CMV- or HSV-luciferase reporter genes were transfected in either the presence or the absence of various protein expression vectors as indicated and under the conditions described for Fig. 2. The histograms represent the effect on luciferase activity of the various proteins as indicated. Means and standard deviations were obtained from at least three separate experiments. (C) CMV-luciferase and MMTV-luciferase were transfected with TRBP expression vector and different protein expression vectors as indicated. The histograms representing the averages of three separate experiments represent the luciferase activity obtained in the presence of the various proteins and TRBP divided by the luciferase activity obtained in the control wells transfected with TRBP alone.
|
Transcription factors and transcriptional coregulators contain domains that allow the proteins to be recruited to the promoter through either DNA or protein interactions and an activation domain having either enzymatic activity or allowing the recruitment of other regulatory (or enzymatic) proteins through protein-protein interactions to the promoter (1, 13, 35). Similarly, splicing factors can interact with their RNA substrates via RRM domains and can presumably recruit other proteins through their auxiliary domains (48, 51, 52, 54). Based on these observations, we speculated that the RRMs and the auxiliary domains of these proteins might mediate different activities in terms of both splicing and transcription, allowing for a functional comparison of each of these proteins by exchanging domains between them.
After demonstrating that TRBP is recruited to the progesterone-regulated mouse mammary tumor virus (MMTV) promoter, we demonstrate that both CoAA-mediated transcriptional and splicing effects are enhanced by TRBP, suggesting that CoAA-mediated effects are promoter dependent. Supporting this hypothesis, we observe that CoAA affects both transcription and splicing in a promoter-preferential manner. By swapping the RRMs and the auxiliary domains of CoAA, p54nrb, and hnRNP A1, we demonstrate that depending on the promoter, the RRMs and the auxiliary domain of CoAA are differently engaged in transcription, contributing to the promoter-preferential effects on RNA splicing mediated by CoAA.
|
|
|---|
Transfection and chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP). The chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) assay was performed with a TRBP antibody using a cell line containing a stably integrated MMTV chloramphenicol acetyltransferase reporter gene as previously described (26). Real-time PCR was performed using CYBR Green PCR master mix from Applied Biosystems. Transfection experiments were done in triplicate using 12-well plates. A transfection master mix was prepared for three wells. Steroid receptors at 5 ng/well were cotransfected with 300 ng of reporter genes per well (except for CMV containing reporter genes, for which 5 ng/well supplemented with 300 ng of pBlueScript vector was used) and 300 ng of different expression vectors per well (except where indicated), using Lipofectamine reagent (Invitrogen) as specified by the manufacturer. After 6 h of incubation, the medium was replaced with medium containing 5% stripped fetal bovine serum and progesterone (Pg; 10-8 M) or estradiol (E2; 10-9 M). After 24 h of incubation at 37°C under 5% CO2, the cells were harvested using either RLT buffer (Promega) for the luciferase assay or 1 ml of TRIzol (Invitrogen) for each set of triplicate wells for RNA isolation as specified by the manufacturer.
DNase treatment and RT-PCR.
A DNase treatment master mix containing AMV/Tfl reaction buffer (Access RT-PCR system; Promega), MgSO4 (2.5 mM final concentration), and RQ1 DNase (1 U; Promega) was prepared and aliquoted to digest plasmid DNA contamination from RNA preparations for 1 h at 37°C, this was followed by 15 min of DNase heat inactivation at 65°C. An aliquot of this reaction mixture was used for reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) using the Access RT-PCR system. RT-PCR master mix containing radiolabeled primers at 1 µM was prepared as specified by the manufacturer. The primers were radiolabeled using [
-32P]ATP (4,500 Ci/mmol) and T4 kinase (Invitrogen) as specified by the manufacturer. The primers were as follows: sense CD44 primer, AGACACCATGCATGGTGCACC; antisense CD44 primer, CCATAACAGCATCAGGAGTG; sense CT/CGRP primer, CATCGCTGTCTGCGAGGGCC; antisense CT/CGRP (exon 4), GAGTTTAGTTGGCATTCTGG; antisense CT/CGRP (exon5), CTGCTCAGGCTTGAAGGTCC. Radioactive RT-PCR products derived from CT/CGRP minigenes were fractionated on nondenaturing 5% polyacrylamide gels. Radioactive RT-PCR products derived from CD44 minigenes were fractionated on denaturing 5% polyacrylamide gels. Dried gels were exposed to autoradiographic films or placed in PhosphorImager cassettes to allow quantification by the PhosphorImaging system (Molecular Dynamics). DNase heat inactivation at 65°C permits destabilization of RNA secondary structures; for the same reason, the RT step was performed at 48°C. To avoid cross-contamination and variability, we used the Access RT-PCR system (Promega), which allows the RT and PCR steps to be performed in the same tube. Only 20 cycles of PCR (30 s at 94°C, 45 s at 56°C, and 1 min at 68°C) were performed (2).
|
|
|---|
![]() View larger version (43K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 1. CoAA-mediated effects on transcription and splicing are enhanced by TRBP. (A) Agarose gel-based analysis and quantitative analysis by real-time PCR of Pg-stimulated recruitment of TRBP to a stably integrated MMTV promoter by the ChIP assay (see Materials and Methods). (B) HeLa cells were plated on 12-well plates 24 h before transfection in a 5% stripped serum-based medium. Each condition was used in triplicate wells. Per well, 5 ng of PR and 300 ng of MMTV-luciferase reporter gene were transfected with increasing amounts of pcDNA3-CoAA expression vector in the absence or in the presence of pcDNA3-TRBP expression vector as indicated. The amount of transfected DNA was equilibrated using the pcDNA3-empty expression vector. The serum-free transfection medium was replaced 6 h after transfection by a 5% stripped serum-based medium containing Pg (10-8 M). After 24 h of incubation, transfected cells were harvested for the luciferase assay. The luciferase activities obtained under the different conditions were divided by the luciferase activity obtained in the control wells transfected only with the pcDNA3-empty expression vector (first column). The histogram represents the mean and standard deviation (SD) of three separate experiments. (C) The CD44 minigene gives rise to three spliced variants containing either the two variable exon cassettes, v4 and v5 (inclusion), none of these exons (skipping), or one exon inclusion product (v4). HeLa cells were transfected as described for panel B, except that the reporter gene used was MMTV-CD44. Cells were harvested using 1 ml of TRIzol for each 12-well triplicate before RNA extraction. After DNase treatment, radiolabeled primers were used to amplify CD44 RNA products (see Materials and Methods). Autoradiograms of the radiolabeled-PCR products obtained in a representative experiment are shown. The histogram shows the mean (and SD, n = 3) quantification of the CD44 skipping/inclusion ratio obtained in the presence of different amounts of CoAA and/or TRBP expression vectors, divided by the control skipping/inclusion ratio obtained in the presence of only the empty expression vector (first column). (D) The CT/CGRP minigene contains two polyadenylation sites (pA) in either exon 4, giving rise to the CT product, or exon 6, giving rise to the CGRP product. HeLa cells were transfected as described for panel B, except that the reporter gene used was MMTV-CT/CGRP. Autoradiograms of the radiolabeled PCR products obtained in a representative experiment are shown. The histogram shows the mean (and SD, n = 3) quantification of the CT/CGRP ratio obtained in the presence of different amounts of CoAA and/or TRBP expression vectors, divided by the control CT/CGRP ratio obtained in the presence of only the empty expression vector (first column).
|
![]() View larger version (33K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 2. CoAA mediates promoter-preferential effects on transcription and alternative splicing. (A) MMTV-, CMV-, or HSV-luciferase reporter genes were transfected in HeLa cells as described in Materials and Methods. The MMTV-luciferase reporter gene, transfected with PR, was activated by Pg. The reporter genes were transfected with 300 ng of pcDNA3-CoAA (CoAA), pcDNA3-p54nrb (p54), pcDNA3-hnRNPA1 (A1), or pcDNA3 empty expression vector. The histograms represent the luciferase activity obtained in presence of either CoAA, p54nrb, or hnRNPA1 divided by the control luciferase activity obtained in presence of the empty expression vector. The means and SD were calculated from three separate experiments. (B) The same conditions as described for panel A were used, except that the reporter genes were MMTV-CD44, CMV-CD44, or HSV-CD44. The histograms represent either the fold effect of CoAA and p54nrb on the skipping/inclusion ratio (open boxes) or the fold effect of hnRNPA1 on the v4/inclusion ratio (solid boxes). The fold effect was obtained by dividing the ratio obtained in the presence of the different protein expression vectors by the ratio obtained in the presence of the empty expression vector (ø). Means and SD were calculated from three separate experiments. Representative autoradiograms of radioactive low-cycle RT-PCR amplification of splicing products are shown at the bottom.
|
We further tested the splicing effects of CoAA by using a second splicing reporter gene derived from the human CT/CGRP gene (27), giving rise to either the CT or to the CGRP RNAs (Fig. 1D). This splicing reporter, like CD44, involves the alternative recognition of a weak internal exon (the black CT exon in Fig. 1D) characterized by a weak 3'-splice site requiring activation by processing enhancer sequences (27, 49). The two systems differ in that the alternative exon in CT/CGRP is a 3'-terminal exon involving differential polyadenylation as well as splicing. In addition, the CD44 alternative splicing decision is regulated by exon-located regulatory sequences whereas the CT/CGRP splicing event has an intron regulator in addition to exon-specific sequences (27, 49). Use of these two systems permits the examination of whether CoAA regulates the splicing of any weak exon to produce more products resulting from exon skipping. As shown in Fig. 1D, increasing the concentration of CoAA changed the ratio of the spliced isoforms. At higher concentrations, CoAA increased the CT/CGRP ratio ca. fourfold (Fig. 1D). Therefore, in contrast to the situation with CD44, CoAA stimulated the inclusion rather than the exclusion of the weak exon, indicating that the CoAA effect is not simply an inhibition of the splicing apparatus to hinder the recognition of weak exons. Interestingly, two- to threefold less CoAA expression vector was required to obtain a maximal effect on splicing in the presence of TRBP (Fig. 1D). The CoAA-mediated effects on splicing of the CT/CGRP products, however, reached a plateau in the presence of TRBP, whereas the transcription response continued in the presence of additional CoAA (Fig. 1B and D). Although we observed a splicing effect on the CD44 transcripts when TRBP was overexpressed alone (Fig. 1C), this coregulator did not affect CT/CGRP splicing in the absence of CoAA (Fig. 1D). This could be because the CoAA/TRBP complex stimulated CT production, which was the major product synthesized in HeLa cells in the absence of any stimulation (Fig. 1D, first lane of the autoradiograph).
Our results demonstrate that both transcriptional and splicing CoAA-mediated effects are enhanced by TRBP (Fig. 1B to D), which interacts with CoAA (16) and which is recruited on the Pg-activated MMTV promoter (Fig. 1A). The data suggest that both transcriptional and splicing CoAA-mediated effects are promoter dependent. To test this possibility further, we asked if the transcriptional and splicing effects mediated by CoAA also would be observed using other promoters including the steroid-independent CMV and HSV promoters.
CoAA mediates promoter-preferential effects on transcription and alternative splicing. In the luciferase assay, CoAA enhanced the activity of both the PR-activated MMTV promoter and the CMV promoter to a similar extent (Fig. 2A, left and middle graphs). This effect was not a general effect on either transcription or luciferase activity since CoAA had no effect on the luciferase reporter gene activity driven by the HSV promoter (right graph). Using the CD44 reporter gene, we observed that CoAA altered the ratio of CD44 spliced products when CD44 pre-mRNAs were synthesized from the PR-activated MMTV promoter but that it had minimal effects when CD44 pre-mRNAs were synthesized from either the CMV or the HSV promoter (Fig. 2B). In the particular experiments illustrated by the autoradiograms in Fig. 2B, CoAA enhanced the skipping/inclusion ratio by 3.9-, 1.2-, and 1.6-fold when the CD44 pre-mRNAs were synthesized from the MMTV, CMV, or HSV promoters, respectively. As illustrated by the histograms in Fig. 2B, CoAA enhanced the skipping/inclusion ratio by an average of 3 ± 0.9, 1.2 ± 0.2, and 1.4 ± 0.3-fold, respectively, using the MMTV-, CMV-, or HSV-CD44 reporter gene. These results suggest that an RRM-containing protein can affect both transcriptional activity and splicing decisions in a promoter-preferential manner. Importantly, although splicing effects mediated by RNA-binding proteins can show promoter preferences as already reported (6, 42), these promoter-preferential splicing effects are not a direct consequence of transcriptional activation. Indeed, we observed that CoAA enhanced PR-activated MMTV- and CMV-luciferase activity similarly but significantly affected the splicing of the CD44 products only when they were synthesized from the PR-activated MMTV promoter (Fig. 2). The absence of a direct correlation between transcriptional activation and splicing effects is also consistent with our previous finding that different transcriptional coactivators that enhance transcription can alter splicing decisions in an opposite manner and that an ability to alter transcription does not necessarily alter splicing decisions (2).
To test whether the promoter preference observed using CoAA was due to intrinsic properties of the promoter used, we studied the effect of two other hnRNP-related proteins. hnRNP A1, known not to alter transcription output, was chosen as an RNA-splicing factor which has been reported to specifically increase exon v5 skipping on CD44 (34). As expected, hnRNP A1 had no effect on transcription using the luciferase reporter gene driven by either the MMTV, CMV, or HSV promoters (Fig. 2A). In contrast, it enhanced the production of CD44-spliced RNAs containing only exon v4, as a result of exon v5 skipping (Fig. 2B). Using primers localized in either exon v4 or v5, we determined that the levels of the RNA products containing only exon v4 were specifically increased in the presence of hnRNP A1 (data not shown). The effect of hnRNP A1 on the v4/inclusion ratio was ca. 5-, ca. 10-, and ca. 3-fold from the MMTV-, CMV-, and HSV-CD44 minigenes, respectively. Therefore, the inability of CoAA to significantly alter the splicing of transcripts synthesized from the CMV or HSV promoters does not reflect an inherent ability of these promoters to suppress the activity of hnRNP proteins on splicing.
We examined the ability of p54nrb, known as both a transcriptional activator and an RNA-processing factor to produce transcription and splicing effects in our assays. p54nrb activated the transcription of only the MMTV promoter (ca. fourfold [Fig. 2A]) and slightly increased exon inclusion from all three promoters driving the CD44 minigene (Fig. 2B). Consequently, CoAA, hnRNP A1, and p54nrb represent three proteins with similar architecture (Fig. 3A; also see Introduction) that in our assays alter either both transcription and splicing or only splicing. All the proteins or mutants tested in this work (see below) were cloned into the same pcDNA3 expression vector having a myc epitope coding sequence at the 3' end, allowing Western blot-based analysis of the expression levels of the different proteins (see Materials and Methods). Although CoAA was expressed less than hnRNP A1 or p54nrb, this observation did not alter our conclusions, since we compared the effects only of one protein on different promoters; different proteins were compared based on their respective promoter preferential effects. Since hnRNP A1 had more effect on the CMV-CD44 minigene than on the MMTV-CD44 minigene and CoAA had more effect on the MMTV-CD44 minigene than on the CMV-CD44 minigene (Fig. 2B), we concluded that the splicing effects observed did not reflect an intrinsic ability of the promoters to respond in a particular way to hnRNP-related proteins.
To understand the relationship between the trancriptional coactivation function of CoAA and its splicing activity, we next investigated the structural mechanisms by which CoAA similarly enhanced the transcriptional activity of both CMV and PR-activated MMTV promoters but significantly affected the splicing of CD44 products synthesized only from the PR-activated MMTV promoter.
The RRMs of CoAA mediate its transcriptional effects on a CMV-luciferase reporter gene. On one hand, CoAA was shown to interact with TRBP through its auxiliary domain (16), suggesting that CoAA could be engaged in transcription through this domain. On the other hand, the RRM motifs of hnRNP-related proteins can bind RNAs as well as single-stranded DNA sequences, potentially allowing the recruitment of RRM-containing proteins to gene promoters (4, 36, 50, 55). In consequence, theoretically, the promoter-preferential transcriptional effects of CoAA could be mediated by either its RRMs or its auxiliary domain. Experiments using deleted CoAAs missing either the RRMs or the auxiliary domain indicated that both domains were necessary for CoAA-mediated transcriptional activity on both the CMV and the MMTV promoters (data not shown). Consequently, we turned to domain swapping between the three utilized hnRNP proteins to determine the role of each domain in mediating promoter-preferential transcriptional effects.
As shown in Fig. 3B (left), the CoAA-mediated transcriptional effect on the CMV promoter was lost when the RRMs from either hnRNPA1 (A1N-CoAAC) or p54nrb (p54N-CoAAC) replaced the RRMs of CoAA, although the three proteins (CoAA, A1N-CoAAC, and p54N-CoAAC) had similar expression levels (data not shown). These results indicated the specific importance of the CoAA RRMs for transcriptional activity on the CMV promoter. Importantly, the CoAA RRMs conferred CMV transcriptional activation when fused to the C terminus of p54nrb (CoAAN-p54C). Because CoAA (but not p54nrb) was active on the CMV promoter, this result again emphasized the importance of CoAA RRMs for transcriptional activation of the CMV promoter. As a control, we observed that CoAAN-p54C was not active on the HSV promoter, which was not activated by either CoAA or p54nrb (Fig. 3B, right). The CoAA RRMs were not sufficient to confer activity to any auxiliary domain since the fusion of these RRMs to the hnRNP A1 auxiliary domain (CoAAN-A1C) produced no transcriptional effect although this mutant had a similar expression level to that of CoAAN-p54C (Fig. 3B, left graph, and data not shown). Consequently, CoAA RRMs require a transcriptionally active auxiliary domain (CoAAC or p54C versus none or A1C) to mediate a transcriptional effect on the CMV promoter. The effects are specific for CoAA RRMs since the RRMs of neither hnRNPA1 nor p54nrb can replace the CoAA RRMs.
Interestingly, it was shown that CoAA interacts with the promoter-recruited TRBP coregulator through its auxiliary domain (16) and that TRBP enhanced CoAA-mediated transcriptional effects on a PR-activated MMTV promoter (Fig. 1B). Together, these observations suggested that CoAA could be engaged through its auxiliary domain interacting with TRBP in PR-activated MMTV transcriptional regulation and could be engaged through its RRMs in CMV transcriptional regulation. To test this hypothesis, we reasoned that CoAA should enhance TRBP-mediated effects on the PR-activated MMTV promoter but not on the CMV promoter. When TRBP was expressed, CoAA enhanced the TRBP-mediated effects on PR-activated MMTV-luciferase by ca. 10-fold but enhanced the TRBP-mediated effects on CMV-luciferase by only 4-fold (Fig. 3C). This contrasted with the equal CoAA-mediated effects previously shown for the two promoters in the absence of TRBP (Fig. 2A). Importantly, we observed that only hybrid proteins containing the auxiliary domain of CoAA (CoAA itself, A1N-CoAAC, or p54N-CoAAC) were able to significantly enhance TRBP-mediated effects on the PR-activated MMTV promoter (Fig. 3C), although the expression levels of these proteins containing the CoAA auxiliary domain were lower than those of the proteins that did not contain the CoAA auxiliary domain (A1, p54, CoAAN-A1C, and CoAAN-p54C [data not shown]). Because the RRMs of either hnRNP A1 or p54nrb can partially replace CoAA RRMs (A1N-CoAAC and p54N-CoAAC, respectively) to mediate the transcriptional effect on a TRBP-activated MMTV promoter, these results emphasized a predominant role of the CoAA auxiliary domain on this promoter. In contrast, and as expected, none of these proteins enhanced the TRBP-mediated effect on the CMV promoter (Fig. 3C).
In summary, our results suggest that CoAA is engaged in regulating steroid-dependent MMTV transcriptional activity through its auxiliary domain and in regulating the steroid-independent CMV transcriptional activity through its RRMs. To compare the transcriptional coactivation activity of CoAA with its splicing activity, the same mutants and hybrid proteins were used next in the splicing assay.
The RRMs of CoAA prevent splicing effects on CMV-CD44 gene products. As shown in Fig. 2, CoAA and hnRNP A1 affected CD44 splicing in different ways. CoAA significantly promoted the skipping of both alternative exons, but did so only when transcription occurred from the PR-activated MMTV promoter. In contrast, hnRNP A1 promoted the skipping of only exon v5 of CD44 products synthesized from either the MMTV, CMV, or HSV promoters. Figure 4 compares the ability of natural, deleted, and hybrid proteins to promote the skipping of both exons (skipping/inclusion ratio) and skipping of just exon v5 (v4/inclusion).
![]() View larger version (35K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 4. The RRMs of CoAA prevent splicing effects on CMV-CD44 products. MMTV-CD44 (A) or CMV-CD44 (B) reporter genes were transfected, as described in Materials and Methods, with or without the protein expression vectors as indicated. The histograms represent the fold effect of the different proteins on either the skipping/inclusion ratio or the v4/inclusion ratio. The fold effect was obtained by dividing the ratio obtained in the presence of the various protein expression vectors by the ratio obtained in the presence of the empty expression vector (Ø). Means and standard deviations were calculated from three separate experiments. Representative autoradiograms of radioactive low-cycle RT-PCR amplification of splicing products are shown on the right.
|
In contrast, as observed using CoAA, the hybrid protein CoAAN-A1C did not alter splicing decisions on CMV-transcribed CD44 pre-mRNAs even though the expression level of this hybrid protein was higher than that of CoAA (Fig. 4B and data not shown). These results clearly indicate that CoAA RRMs were responsible for the lack of CoAA effects on the splicing of CMV-CD44 gene products (Fig. 2B and 4B).
In conclusion, CoAA RRMs play a major role in mediating a positive transcriptional effect on the CMV promoter (Fig. 3B) and in preventing splicing effects on the CD44 pre-mRNAs transcribed from this promoter (Fig. 4B). These observations raise the hypothesis that CoAA could be engaged in CMV transcriptional regulation through its RRMs, limiting the ability of the protein to be engaged in the splicing of the CD44 pre-mRNAs synthesized from this promoter. In contrast, CoAA could be involved in splicing regulation of CD44 pre-mRNAs synthesized from the PR-activated MMTV promoter because CoAA is engaged in the regulation of this promoter through its auxiliary domains (Fig. 1, 3C, and 4A).
Since CoAA and TRBP have been implicated in steroid receptor-mediated transcription and since CoAA did not behave similarly when a steroid-regulated promoter (MMTV) was compared to a steroid-independent promoter (CMV), we investigated the transcriptional and splicing effects of CoAA by using other steroid-regulated promoters to test whether the ability of CoAA to simultaneously affect transcription and splicing decisions was dependent on an intrinsic ability of steroid-dependent promoters.
CoAA-mediated effects on splicing are inversely correlated with its transcriptional effects.
Our results suggested that the role played by CoAA RRMs in transcriptional regulation of the non-steroid-regulated CMV promoter limited the involvement of CoAA in the splicing of the CD44 pre-mRNAs transcribed from this promoter. In contrast, when CoAA was engaged through its auxiliary domain in transcriptional regulation of the steroid-regulated MMTV promoter, the protein could affect splicing. To test whether other steroid-dependent promoters could behave like the MMTV promoter, we tested a PRE-TATA promoter activated by Pg and an ERE-TATA promoter activated by estradiol through the estrogen receptors ER
and ERß. Interestingly, when CoAA mediated a strong effect in terms of transcription, we observed a modest effect on splicing (Fig. 5). Consequently, the splicing effects mediated by CoAA were inversely correlated with its transcriptional effects on steroid-regulated promoters. These results again demonstrate that the effects on splicing of CoAA are not a direct consequence of its transcriptional effects. Moreover, the results suggest that the promoter-preferential splicing effects mediated by CoAA are not dependent simply on steroid-regulated versus non-steroid-regulated promoters but emphasize again that the precise manner in which CoAA is engaged in transcriptional regulation could have consequences on the subsequent splicing regulatory activity of CoAA.
![]() View larger version (16K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 5. CoAA-mediated splicing effects are inversely correlated with its transcriptional effects on steroid-regulated promoters. PRE-, ERE-, or MMTV-luciferase reporter genes or PRE-, ERE-, or MMTV-CD44 reporter genes were transfected with 5 ng of either PR, ER , or ERß per well and with 300 ng of CoAA expression vector or empty expression vector per well. The open boxes represent the fold effect of CoAA on luciferase activity, and the solid boxes represent the fold effect of CoAA on the CD44 skipping/inclusion ratio. Means and SD obtained from at least three separate experiments are shown.
|
![]() View larger version (28K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 6. The CMV promoter does not completely abrogate CoAA-mediated splicing effects on CMV-transcribed RNA. MMTV-CT/CGRP (A) or CMV-CT/CGRP (B) reporter genes were transfected, as described in Materials and Methods, with or without different protein expression vectors as indicated. The histograms represent the fold effect of the various proteins on the CT/CGRP ratio. The fold effect was obtained by dividing the ratio obtained in the presence of the various protein expression vectors by the ratio obtained in the presence of the empty expression vector (Ø). Means and standard deviations were calculated from three separate experiments. Representative autoradiograms of radioactive low-cycle RT-PCR amplification of splicing products are shown on the right.
|
|
|
|---|
Importantly, the limited splicing effect of CoAA on the CMV-transcribed CD44 RNAs was not due to an intrinsic ability of the CMV promoter to inhibit the splicing activity of hnRNP proteins. Indeed, hnRNP A1 affected the splicing of CMV-transcribed CD44 RNAs (Fig. 2). Moreover, the CMV promoter did not completely abrogate CoAA-mediated splicing effects. Indeed, CoAA affected the splicing of CMV-transcribed CT/CGRP RNAs (Fig. 6). These results are consistent with the recent observation that the splicing activity of SR (serine- and arginine-rich) protein family splicing factors depends on both the promoter and the nature of the splicing reporter used (6, 37, 42).
To explain these promoter-preferential actions of the SR splicing factors, two models have been proposed. PGC-1, structurally related to the SR family of splicing factors, is a transcriptional coregulator recruited to target promoters by the nuclear receptor PPAR
and was shown to affect splicing decisions in a promoter-dependent manner (37). It was proposed that PGC-1, when recruited to a target promoter, moves across the gene due to its interaction with the C-terminal domain of RNA pol II, allowing the interaction of PGC-1 with the neonascent transcript, whose splicing can be affected (37). In this model, the splicing effect of a given regulatory protein would depend on its promoter recruitment. A second model proposed that promoter-dependent effects of SR splicing factors depend on the RNA polymerase II elongation rate. In this model, the nature of a promoter and the nature of the transcriptional regulatory complex buildup on this promoter would control the rate at which the RNA pol II is synthesizing the pre-mRNA. Depending on the elongation rate, SR splicing factors would have more or less time to recognize splicing-regulatory RNA sequences. At a low elongation rate, SR splicing factors would have more time to interact with their RNA substrate than at a high elongation rate, allowing their engagement in the splicing process (17, 39, 42). Consequently, in this model, the action of a given splicing factor would depend on the speed at which the pre-mRNA is synthesized and, very importantly, on the affinity of the splicing factor for its target pre-mRNA (17, 39, 42).
According to these models and based on the results presented here, we propose that promoter-specific splicing effects mediated by a subset of hnRNP-related transcriptional/splicing regulators could depend on the "competitive" recruitment of these proteins by (i) the promoter and (ii) the gene product synthesized from this promoter (Fig. 7). Indeed, we observed that the CoAA RRMs play a major role in mediating a positive effect on CMV transcriptional activity and in preventing the splicing effect on CMV-transcribed CD44 RNAs (Fig. 3B and 4B). Inversely, the CoAA auxiliary domain is important in mediating transcriptional CoAA effects on the PR-activated MMTV promoter that also permits CoAA-mediated splicing effects on the CD44 RNAs (Fig. 3C and 4A). This suggested that the way in which CoAA is engaged in the transcriptional process could affect its involvement in downstream events such as splicing. However, importantly, the engagement of CoAA in the splicing process is not totally dependent on the promoter. Like the CoAA-mediated effect on CD44 RNA splicing, the CoAA-mediated effect on CT/CGRP RNA is enhanced by TRBP when a PR-activated MMTV promoter drives the minigenes (Fig. 1). However, unlike the splicing of CMV-transcribed CD44 RNA, the splicing of CMV-transcribed CT/CGRP RNA is affected by CoAA (Fig. 6). Consequently, the engagement of CoAA in the splicing process could depend on its engagement in transcriptional complexes and probably also on the ability of the transcript to recruit CoAA from these transcriptional complexes.
![]() View larger version (19K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 7. Competitive recruitment of RNA-binding proteins by the promoter and the transcript. A transcriptional/splicing regulator, like CoAA could be recruited to target promoters through either DNA-protein or protein-protein interactions. Depending on the affinity of the regulator for the transcriptional complex and for the transcript synthesized from this promoter, the regulator will or will not be able to interact with the transcript, participating or not participating in the splicing regulation process. For instance, the engagement of CoAA through its RRMs in the CMV promoter regulation ("Non-permissive interaction") could restrain the ability of CoAA to be engaged in splicing (promoter A), whereas the engagement of CoAA through its auxiliary domain in the PR-activated MMTV promoter regulation ("Permissive interaction") could allow this engagement (promoter B). In the natural context of a promoter driving the synthesis of an unique transcript, several mechanisms could coexist to modulate this competition either by changing the "strength" of the engagement of a given regulator in the transcriptional complex or by changing the affinity of the regulator for the RNA transcript (see Discussion).
|
Inversely, several mechanisms could also exist to modulate the affinity of these proteins for the RNA transcripts. It is known that transcriptional factors recruit various transcriptional coregulators harboring a variety of enzymatic activities such as acetylation, methylation, ubiquitination, or phosphorylation (13, 35). Interestingly, two RNA-binding proteins were recently identified as substrates for the transcriptional coregulator CARM1, which contains a methyltransferase activity (22, 24). Methylation of RNA-binding proteins is known to affect their activity, notably their interaction with RNAs (18, 19, 46). Several reports also suggest that the binding activity of RNA-binding proteins can be affected by phosphorylation (25, 41). p54nrb can bind either RNA or DNA depending on its phosphorylation status (3, 55). It also was shown that phosphorylation of the IQ domain of the RNA-binding protein EWS, involved in both transcription and splicing regulation, inhibited its interaction with RNA (8). Interestingly, CoAA contains a similar IQ domain (data not shown). Based on these observations, an interesting possibility would be that coregulators harboring enzymatic activities could be recruited to target promoters and could locally affect the fate of RNA-binding proteins, in particular their ability to regulate the RNA-splicing process, by modulating their ability to bind the transcripts.
In conclusion, we propose that activated nuclear receptors recruit a subset of transcriptional coregulators and that their ability to participate in downstream process (including alternative splicing decisions) is influenced by other promoter-recruited coregulators, thereby permitting the promoter to control pre-mRNA-processing events in response to transcriptional stimuli like steroid hormones. Competitive recruitment of RNA-binding proteins by complexes built up on the promoter and complexes built up on the transcripts might have importance beyond splicing regulation. The number of proteins identified harboring RNA-binding domains involved in transcription is increasing rapidly (2, 21, 47, 53). Some of these proteins act as transcription factors and bind to DNA, and others act as transcriptional coregulators and are recruited to target promoters by transcription factors through protein-protein interactions (2, 21, 47, 53). Some of these RNA-binding proteins might act as feedback "sensors" of the amount of gene products synthesized. If coregulator proteins required for the transcriptional activity of a promoter are able also to interact with the gene products synthesized from that promoter, then when more gene products are synthesized, less RNA-interacting protein would be available to coactivate the promoter transcriptional machinery. Such a scenario would lead to a decrease in the promoter activity until the RNA gene products are metabolized, translated, or degraded.
Present address: Equipe AVENIR-INSERM U496, Centre G. Hayem, Hopital Saint-Louis, 75010 Paris, France. ![]()
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»